Full Judgment
2. We heard Shri P.S. Bedi, Consultant. He argued that the imported goods are parts of a furnace and were Conveyor Belts which pass through the furnace carrying articles for tempering, hardening etc. The goods were made of Iron and Steel. He submitted that Heading 84.22 specifically covers the goods and is the correct classification and not Heading 73.33/40. Shri Bedi argued that as there is specific item, the goods could not be consigned to the residuary item.
3. Shri J. Gopinath, Ld. SDR opposing the arguments invited attention to Note 1(h) of Section 15 and the Chapter by virtue of this note. He also invited our attention to Note 1(g) to the same section and submitted that the goods seem to be chains and if they are chains they would be parts of general use.
4. We have considered arguments of both sides. Since the goods are described as "Conveyor Belts" there is no question of treating them as chains in order to consider classification under Heading 73.29.
5. Section Note 1(h) is to the effect that Chapter 84 does not cover endless belts of metal wire or strip. The present goods being Conveyor Belts should be considered to be endless belts. Therefore, it appears to us that Note 1(h) excludes the imported goods from the scope of Section XVI of Chapter 84. The goods made of metal (Iron or steel) can alternatively be classified only under Heading 73.33/40. The imported goods cannot be considered as belt conveyors in the context of the wording used under Heading 84.22. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal.